3Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 8, “having receiver” should be “having a receiver”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Respect to Claim 1
The claim recites the cargo space only functionally in the preamble, but the body of the claim appears to clearly structurally recite the cargo space (noting “said cargo net suspended above a portion of said cargo space” which is clearly structural and not a functional limitation), but later recites the plurality of mounting devices “operable to be positioned in multiple positions along the vertical dimension of a vertical compartment of a cargo space. . .such that said cargo net is suspended above a bottom of said cargo compartment, creating cargo spaces above and below the cargo net” which only functionally recites “a” cargo space (for clarity, it is noted that this phrase references “a cargo space” and so does not refer back to the structurally recited cargo space), as well as “when said plurality of mounting devices are installed in said interior” which is a functional recitation that does not make sense to be functional given that the cargo net is previously structurally recited in position above the cargo. It is unclear whether the claim structurally or only functionally requires the cargo space having a plurality of locations where the mounting devices can be attached along a vertical dimension and/or the cargo net suspended above the bottom of the cargo compartment creating cargo spaces above and below the cargo net and/or the mounting devices installed in the cargo space interior (noting that “when. . .installed” would be functional, but as they are claimed as “being engaged” with the mounting rod which is also at the side of the outer perimeter of the cargo net, it seems that this might also be taken to be a structural limitation).
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 1 and 8
The scope of the phrase “at any selected position” is unclear, noting that it is unclear whether it requires the mounting devices to be attachable to any position, if it encompasses attachment at a limited number of selectable positions (e.g. similar to the invention, attachable at positions which include appropriate mating attachment mechanisms), or if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 4
It recites the limitations "said plurality of receiver slots" and “said plurality of extensions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes the claim to depend from claim 3 in order to provide the proper antecedent basis.
With Respect to Claim 6
It recites the limitations "said mounting clip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With Respect to Claims 10 and 14
Claims 10 and 14 depend from cancelled claim 9 and so their scope is unclear.
For the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes this to be a typo and for them to instead depend from claim 8, as that appears to be the intent based on Examiner’s best understanding of the invention.
With Respect to Claim 15
The scope of the phrase “in any selected position” is unclear, noting that it does not refer back to the plurality of positions selected in part a. It is unclear whether it requires the mounting devices to be attachable to any position (i.e. allowing the user to select any position without limitation), if it should be interpreted more narrowly to refer to one of the plurality of positions selected in part (a) of the claim, if it encompasses attachment at a limited number of selectable positions (e.g. similar to the invention, attachable at positions which include appropriate mating attachment mechanisms), or if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 17
It recites the limitation " said plurality of extensions ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes the claim to depend from claim 16 in order to provide the proper antecedent basis.
With Respect to Claim 18
It recites the limitations " the plurality of receiver slots" and “the extension”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes the claim to depend from claim 16 in order to provide the proper antecedent basis.
With Respect to Claim 19
The phrase “a mounting rod passed through a plurality of receiver slots” is unclear as to whether it is meant to refer to the previously recited plurality of receiver slots, if it requires a different plurality of receiver slots, or if it encompasses either interpretation. For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes it to be a typo and to mean “the plurality of receiver slots”, as otherwise the use of the same phrase for different parts would cause confusion.
With Respect to Claims 21-22
They recite the limitation " said plurality of receiver slots ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes these claims to depend from claim 3 in order to provide the proper antecedent basis.
With Respect to Claims 3-7, 10, 12-14, and 16-23
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10 and 14 depend from cancelled claimed 9; for the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes this to be a typo and for them to instead depend from claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-7, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2013/0221697 to Steinbrecher (Steinbrecher) in view of U.S. Patent #3,049,373 to Biggers (Biggers).
With Respect to Claim 1
Steinbrecher discloses a cargo net system for securing cargo in a cargo compartment, comprising: a. a cargo net (152) having an outer perimeter, said cargo net suspended above a portion of said cargo (see, e.g. FIG. 2); b. at least one mounting rod (152/154 are shown as rods) at at least one side of said outer perimeter of said cargo net and c. a plurality of mounting devices (132/134/136) operable to be positioned along the vertical dimension of a vertical compartment of an interior of a cargo space (see, e.g. FIG. 2, noting that they are clearly operable in this fashion as they are positioned as claimed), such that the cargo net is suspended above a bottom of said cargo compartment when said plurality of mounting devices are installed in said interior, creating cargo spaces above and below the cargo net; but does not disclose each being operable to be positioned in multiple positions along the vertical dimension of a vertical compartment of an interior of a cargo space, said plurality of mounting devices each having a complementary receiver to an outer shape of said at least one rod and being engaged with and tightly fitted around said at least one mounting rod.
However, Biggers discloses a similar cargo net structure including at least one mounting rod (14/17) at an outer side perimeter of the cargo net, and a plurality of mounting devices (15, 33, 35, and related structure) operable to be positioned along the vertical dimension of a vertical compartment of an interior of a cargo space (capable of this use, noting attachment via screws which allow for adjustable attachment along the vertical dimension), said plurality of mounting devices each having a complementary receiver (noting socket 35/36) to an outer shape of said at least one rod and being engaged with and tightly fitted around said at least one mounting rod (see, e.g. FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Biggers, to form the mounting devices of Steinbrecher (for clarity, this modifies both 132/134/36 and the end portions of the rods which extend into the channels of 132/134/136) so as to have a complementary receiver/sleeve as claimed/as taught by Biggers, in order to allow for adjustability of the location and/or orientation of the rods and net, to allow for separation of the rod/net from its mounting device for repair/replacement/cleaning (of either of these parts), and/or as a mere substitution of one art known fastening structure for another, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable and/or making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
For clarity as to the final structure, it is noted that Steinbrecher does not specify how its mounting devices are attached, and so the use of a screw attachment per Biggers is obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment mechanism, and the combination uses circular attachment like that of Steinbrecher to allow for horizontal or vertical attachment of the net to the mounting points as desired; and the combination replaces the integrally formed circular ends of the rods with separable attachment via a sleeve, pivot lug, and plate member similar to Biggers but in a circular shape so as to mate with the Steinbrecher mounts as modified.
It is noted that it is not necessary to modify the attachment of the net of Steinbrecher to its rods as part of this rejection, and so the rejection of claim 1 does not include that modification.
With Respect to Claim 6
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting device includes an anchor portion (132/134/136 as modified) operable to be mounted in said interior of said cargo space (capable of this use and/or via screws per Biggers), and said mounting clip (35/36) includes a pressure fitting portion operable to reversibly engage said mounting rod (it is pressure fitted as when tightened it exerts pressure to fit to the rod).
With Respect to Claim 7
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one mounting rod includes a first mounting rod and a second mounting rod (both references disclose two mounting rods), the at least one mounting device includes a first plurality of mounting devices and second plurality of mounting devices, wherein said first plurality of mounting devices are installed on a first wall of said interior of said cargo space and said second plurality of mounting devices are installed on a second wall of said interior of said cargo space such that said cargo net is suspended above at least a portion of said cargo space, wherein said first mounting rod is reversibly engaged with the first plurality of mounting devices and said second mounting rod is reversibly engaged with said second plurality of mounting devices (per Steinbrecher).
With Respect to Claim 15
A method of installing a cargo net system for securing cargo above an interior of a cargo space, comprising: a. selecting a plurality of positions in a vertical dimension of an interior of a cargo space (the positions that the mounting devices are installed per Steinbrecher, inherent in their being located at those positions); and: b. anchoring each of a plurality of mounting devices in any selected position in said interior of said cargo space (inherent in their being located there, see also Biggers disclosure of such anchoring via screws), said plurality of mounting devices being attached to a rod (rod per Steinbrecher as modified by Biggers) at a plurality of points at or near an edge of a cargo net, wherein the installed cargo net spans the entire interior of the cargo space and is operable to suspend cargo above the interior of the cargo space (Steinbrecher FIG. 2 and description).
With Respect to Claim 23
The system of claim 1, but does not disclose a particular sizing for the parts and so does not disclose wherein distance between a plurality of straps in said cargo net ranges between 1 cm2 to about 25 cm2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have the distance between a plurality of straps in the cargo net be in the claimed range, as a mere selection of an art appropriate sizing for the net and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claims 3-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2013/0221697 to Steinbrecher (Steinbrecher) in view of U.S. Patent #3,049,373 to Biggers (Biggers) as applied to claim 1 or 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #9,333,897 to Shanks (Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 3
The system of claim 1, and Bigger discloses attaching its cargo net to the rod using an extension comprising a receiver slot (FIG. 1) for receiving the rod; but does not disclose further comprising a plurality of extensions at each side of said outer perimeter, each of said extensions comprising a plurality of receiver slots operable to provide a combination of widths and selectable placement of said cargo net, wherein each of said plurality of extensions includes at least three receiver slots.
However, Shanks discloses forming a similar cargo net and the use of a plurality of extensions (noting strap ends extending beyond 22) on a side of the outer perimeter and loops/receivers (44-51) for inserting a securing device (91) for attachment to a vehicle, and the use of a plurality of loops on each extension to provide additional tie down locations, and that it is known in the art to place nets over the cargo, and also having the net of Shanks extend between opposing sidewall (it is Examiner’s position that these two disclosures indicate that they extend between the sidewalls over the cargo or alternately clearly render such obvious).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Shanks, to form the net of Steinbrecher/the combination with a plurality of extensions at each side of said outer perimeter, each of said extensions comprising a plurality of receiver slots operable to provide a combination of widths and selectable placement of said cargo net, wherein each of said plurality of extensions includes at least three receiver slots, in order to allow for adjustment of the net size to fit cargo spaces of different vehicles, to adjust tension on the net, to adjust the size of the net (e.g. to form a shorter horizontal shelf or vertical wall), and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable (i.e. it merely makes the net size at each side adjsutable) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) and/or a mere duplication of parts (i.e. adding an additional extension and loops to the other side is a mere duplication of the extension, and adding more loops effectively merely duplicates the existing loops) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 4
The system of claim 1 (taken to instead be claim 3, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 4 above for details), wherein the at least one mounting rod is operable to be inserted through any of said plurality of receiver slots in each of said plurality of extensions, wherein the plurality of receiver slots in each of said plurality of extensions align (per Biggers).
With Respect to Claim 5
The system of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of receiver slots are parallel with an edge of the cargo net from which the extension protrudes (per Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 8
Steinbrecher in view of Biggers and Shanks discloses a cargo net system for securing cargo, comprising: a. a cargo net (150 per Steinbrecher, as modified by Bigger and Shanks) having an outer perimeter; b. a plurality of extensions (per Shanks and Bigger) at each side of said outer perimeter (each side per duplication of parts), each of said extensions having an attachment section operable to engage to a mounting device at a plurality of points along the extension (noting attachment section formed by loops/receivers); and c. at least one mounting rod (152/154 per Steinbrecher as modified or 14/17 per Bigger), each having a net attachment point for engaging with an extension of one of said plurality of extensions (the net attachment point being the portion that is located within the loop/receiver when attached), and d. a plurality of anchoring mechanisms (132/134/136 as modified by Bigger), each having receiver (35/36 per Biggers) that is complementary to an outer shape of said at least one mounting rod and being engaged with and tightly fitted around said at least one mounting rod to position said at least one mounting rod at any selected position in a vertical dimension of a cargo space such that said cargo net is suspended above at least a portion of said cargo space when said cargo net system is installed in said cargo space (per Biggers, noting screw attachment allows for attachment at any desired appropriate vertical location), creating vertically divided upper and lower cargo spaces (per Steinbrecher).
With Respect to Claim 10
The system of claim 9 (taken to be claim 8, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details), wherein each of said plurality of extensions includes at least three receiver slots (Shanks discloses using two receiver slots and adding another is obvious as a mere duplication of parts) and the plurality of receiver slots in each of said plurality of extensions align (per Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 12
The system of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of receiver slots are parallel with an edge of the cargo net from which the extension protrudes (per Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 13
The system of claim 8, wherein the net attachment point includes a pressure fitting portion (35) operable to reversibly engage said mounting rod (it is pressure fitted as when tightened it exerts pressure to fit to the rod).
With Respect to Claim 14
The system of claim 9 (taken to be claim 8, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details), further comprising a first plurality of mounting devices and a second plurality of mounting devices (noting, e.g. 132/134 and corresponding mounts on the opposite side of the cargo space), wherein said first plurality of mounting devices are installed on a first wall of said interior of said cargo space and said second plurality of mounting devices are installed on a second wall of said interior of said cargo space, and a first mounting rod reversibly engaged with the first plurality of mounting devices and a second mounting rod reversibly engaged with said second plurality of mounting devices, wherein each of said first and second mounting rods are operable to be inserted through any of said plurality of receiver slots in each of said plurality of extensions (per Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 16
The method of claim 15, wherein said cargo net includes extensions (per Shanks), each of said cargo net extensions protruding orthogonally from one of a side of the cargo net and each said cargo net extension operable to provide multiple selectable receiver slots for placement of said rod (per Shanks), wherein each of said plurality of extensions includes at least three receiver slots (per Shanks and obvious duplication of parts to add a third receiver slot).
With Respect to Claim 17
The method of claim 15 (taken to be claim 16, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details), wherein the plurality of receiver slots in each of said plurality of extensions align (per Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 18
The method of claim 15 (taken to be claim 16, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details), wherein each of the plurality of receiver slots are parallel with an edge of the cargo net from which the extension protrudes (per Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 19
The system of claim 17, wherein the mounting devices each include a pressure fitting portion operable to reversibly engage a mounting rod passed through a plurality of receiver slots (it is pressure fitted as when tightened it exerts pressure to fit to the rod).
With Respect to Claim 20
The method of claim 19, further comprising engaging a first mounting rod with the first plurality of mounting devices and engaging a second mounting rod with said second plurality of mounting devices (per Steinbrecher), wherein each of said first and second mounting rods are operable to be inserted through any of said plurality of receiver slots in each of said plurality of extensions (per Biggers and Shanks).
With Respect to Claim 21
The system of claim 1 (taken to instead be claim 3, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 21 above for details), wherein said plurality of receiver slots are positioned at varying distances (per Shanks) to be mounted in a plurality of cargo spaces (capable of this use).
With Respect to Claim 22
The system of claim 1 (taken to instead be claim 3, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 22 above for details), wherein tension in said cargo net is adjustable by aligning said mounting rod with a receiver slot in said plurality of receiver slots, said receiver slot positioned near said cargo (capable of this use, noting that adjusting the cargo net size will adjust the tension on the net).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2013/0221697 to Steinbrecher (Steinbrecher) in view of U.S. Patent #3,049,373 to Biggers (Biggers) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0121260 to Stephens (Stephens).
With Respect to Claim 6
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 1 above using Steinbrecher in view of Biggers alone, Stephens discloses that a similar clamp that is tightened to secure in position around a rod is a type of pressure fit connection to reversibly engage/attach two parts together, which provides further evidence that the clamp of the combination is a pressure fitting portion, or to the degree that some other construction might be possible, provides sufficient motivation to form it as a pressure fitting portion/connection, for the art known benefits of pressure fitting (e.g. ease of use, separability, does not require additional parts), as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2013/0221697 to Steinbrecher (Steinbrecher) in view of U.S. Patent #3,049,373 to Biggers (Biggers) and U.S. Patent #9,333,897 to Shanks (Shanks) as applied to claim 8 or 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0121260 to Stephens (Stephens).
With Respect to Claim 13 or 19
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 13 or 19 above using Steinbrecher in view of Biggers alone, Stephens discloses that a similar clamp that is tightened to secure in position around a rod is a type of pressure fit connection to reversibly engage/attach two parts together, which provides further evidence that the clamp of the combination is a pressure fitting portion, or to the degree that some other construction might be possible, provides sufficient motivation to form it as a pressure fitting portion/connection, for the art known benefits of pressure fitting (e.g. ease of use, separability, does not require additional parts), as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments relating to Schobel are largely moot as Schobel is not used in the current rejection in view of the amended claim language, see the rejection above using Steinbrecher which discloses using a horizontal net to partition a cargo space into a lower cargo area and an upper cargo area and to support cargo on the net in the upper cargo space (although noting also that the claim language is broader than this, as many of its limitations are functional and only generally recite the net supporting cargo rather than requiring the cargo resting on top of the horizontal net). It is noted that the mere lack of a detailed response to such moot arguments should not be taken as agreement with or acquiescence with such arguments and/or characterizations of the prior art and/or scope of the claim language.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 15, although Schobel is no longer present and the combination with Biggers allows for selecting and attaching at any suitable vertical location on the vehicle, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments regarding the scope of the claim language appears to overly narrowly interpret the scope of the claim language. Examiner notes the 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 15 as the scope of the claim language is unclear. However, the claim language of selecting positions and anchoring the devices at a selected position does not appear to require that they be adjustable or movable to different positions, and would seem to be met by prior art references which include mounting devices that are permanently attached in one location (i.e. if they are attached at a location, that attachment position is inherently selected in some form or fashion, and then it is attached/anchored in that location). If applicant desires to claim such adjustability, it should be more clearly recited in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the cited prior art discloses features relevant to the invention, such as the use of mounting structures to attach cargo nets at multiple different selected vertical locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached on (571)272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734